CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. HON.

COURT OF APPEALS and ARMED FORCES AND POLICE

SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION, INC. (AFPSLAI), Respondents.
Facts:

In this case the armed forces loan association was able to buy home notes from Fund Centrum Finance, Inc
These home notes are instruments of indebtedness wherein it is china banking corporation is the registered owners.
At the maturity date of the home notes, china banking corporation refused to pay.

The initial defense of china banking was that the real party in interest was FCFI, which was not joined in the complaint,
and that petitioner was a mere trustee of FCFI.

This then forced the armed forces loan association to file a civil case for sum of money
China banking then filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds of prescription.
Petitioner insists that upon the face of the complaint, prescription has set in. It claims that the Home Notes annexed to
the pleading bearing a uniform maturity date of December 2, 1983 indicate the date of accrual of the cause of action.
Hence, argues petitioner, private respondent's filing of the complaint for sum of money on September 24, 1996, is way
beyond the prescriptive period of ten years under Article 1144 9 of the Civil Code
private respondent insists that the action accrued only on July 20, 1995, when demand to pay was made on petitioner.

Issue: has the cause of action of armed forces loan association already prescribed??
Sc ruling: no!

," the cause of action does not accrue until the party obligated refuses, expressly or impliedly, to comply with its duty.
a cause of action has three elements, to wit,
o 1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created
o (2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right;
o (3) an act or omission on the part of such defendant violative of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a
breach of the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff
Applying the foregoing principle to the instant case, we rule that private respondent's cause of action accrued only on
July 20, 1995, when its demand for payment of the Home Notes was refused by petitioner

The cause of action cannot be said to accrue on the uniform maturity date of the Home Notes as petitioner posits
because at that point, the third essential element of a cause of action, namely, an act or omission on the part of
petitioner violative of the right of private respondent or constituting a breach of the obligation of petitioner to private
respondent, had not yet occurred.

Thus, the maturity date of the Home Notes is not controlling as far as accrual of cause of action is concerned. What said
date indicates is the time when the obligation matures
the demand was made only on July 20, 1995 hence the cause of action has not yet prescribed!